camaro vs lightning
03-01-2003, 09:12 PM
#1
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
camaro vs lightning
Well i know this isnt about a third gen, but i still think you guys might enjoy this. Last night my bro and his friend were out driving around in his 97 z28 and called me at about 10:35 and said to come over to the local movie theatre to race some guy in a lightning that was picking on him. Well me being me, i never turn down a chance to race so i drove to the parking lot in my 2000 z28 and the lightning revs at me so ofcource i throw a nice rev through the borla and do a nice burnout and he laughs at me so i ask him if he wants to race. He asks me all these questions about what ive got done (K&N fipk, Borla, MAF, and HPP3 installed so far) and he's still not convinced and asks me if i have nitrous. Well finally after i convince him i dont he follows me out to a nearby street that has no traffic and is perfect for racing and we slow down to about 10 mph and i honk 3 times and he does nothing so i'm like wtf? Then all of the sudden he takes off and i mash it,get a tiny bit of wheel spin, and he already has a car on me and i slowly pull even and we stay that way until about 80 mph when i start to walk away. After the race we talked and he said it was a 2002 lightning with supercharger pulley, intake, and chip and he ran a 13.1 at the track which makes me happy because i just beat something pretty damn fast! Hope you guys enjoyed the story
Last edited by 25THRSS; 03-01-2003 at 09:18 PM.
03-02-2003, 08:28 AM
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
Sorry, just have to call it. You have little to no mods on your 2000 z28. There's no way you would take that lightning.
03-02-2003, 09:43 AM
#3
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not? Lightnings aren't unsroppable, and we all know LS1s can be low 13 second cars. Plus running from 10 helped the LS1 because the majority of Lightnings I have seen are really good out of the hole.
03-02-2003, 11:05 AM
#6
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
He said the Lightning has a pulley, intake and chip. The Lightning around here has a pulley and chip and has run a 12.3, and there's no way a near stock LS1 would touch that.
03-02-2003, 11:51 AM
#7
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: michigan
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
03-02-2003, 01:18 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 RS
Engine: 350
Transmission: TH-350
5.9 r/t's are dogs, when i first bought my car i took it to the track and only ran a 15.2 ...lol with a 2.4 60 footer, the next week i raced my buddies on the street and i slaughtered him by about 4 car lengths. thats spinning through 2 gears and a busted posi. have no fear, those 360's are boat anchors. they sit next to 454ss truck motors in my motor hall of shame
Last edited by bubbz89; 03-02-2003 at 01:22 PM.
03-02-2003, 03:58 PM
#11
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 97 Z28
Engine: LT1
Transmission: A4
Axle/Gears: 3.73
I would think with a pulley he'd be faster than that but whatever, nice kill!
The R/T 5.9's run high 14's, low 15's not really what I'd call a dog for a truck but nothing compared to the Lightnings. But against the new SRT-10 Ram, things might get interesting.
The R/T 5.9's run high 14's, low 15's not really what I'd call a dog for a truck but nothing compared to the Lightnings. But against the new SRT-10 Ram, things might get interesting.
03-02-2003, 04:45 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 RS
Engine: 350
Transmission: TH-350
my best run at a track was 15.2, so i dont call beating a r/t by 4 car lenghts a high 14 or low 15. more like a high 15 low 16.
03-02-2003, 05:50 PM
#13
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 97 Z28
Engine: LT1
Transmission: A4
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Maybe it was mid 15's low 15's? Either way, if you got your 2.4 60' down to something respectable, you'd probably be running 14.80's or better all day. So against a truck that on its best day might run 15.00's against a car that could run consistent 14.80's or better, then yeah four lenghts is pretty believable.
I don't think the R/T's deserve a spot next to the 454SS trucks since they run almost a full second quicker in the 1/4 with 100 cubes less than the 454's.
So against a truck that on its best day might run 15.00's against a car that could run consistent 14.80's or better, then yeah four lenghts is pretty believable.I don't think the R/T's deserve a spot next to the 454SS trucks since they run almost a full second quicker in the 1/4 with 100 cubes less than the 454's.
03-02-2003, 05:57 PM
#14
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Well i dont know guys, thats what he said his mods were. We both popped our hoods and i could clearly see the intake with the K&N cone filter and he said he had a pulley and chip. This story is not bs. Why would I type something that long out and lie about it? If you guys dont believe me then i'm sorry but that it exactly what happened. He also said he ran a 13.1 at the track with a 1.8 60 foot.
03-02-2003, 06:04 PM
#15
Originally posted by BRIrocZ
The R/T 5.9's run high 14's, low 15's not really what I'd call a dog for a truck but nothing compared to the Lightnings. But against the new SRT-10 Ram, things might get interesting.
The R/T 5.9's run high 14's, low 15's not really what I'd call a dog for a truck but nothing compared to the Lightnings. But against the new SRT-10 Ram, things might get interesting.
What's under the hood of the SRT's? I don't think I've seen one of these yet.
Last edited by llvll4l2c91350; 03-02-2003 at 06:06 PM.
03-02-2003, 06:44 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Olive Branch, MS
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1990 RS
Engine: 350
Transmission: TH-350
srt are viper motors right? i know they are v10's. but i dunno if its the viper motor. supposed to be running mid to high 12's stock. something this bird will steer clear of
03-02-2003, 07:22 PM
#19
I thought it would be slower than that. A viper with the same motor may run 12's but I dunno about a truck. Granted I dunno what these SRT's look like but the other dude said it was a Ram and Rams are big and look pretty heavy.
Sorry for the ignorance. That's why questions are asked.
Sorry for the ignorance. That's why questions are asked.
03-02-2003, 09:23 PM
#22
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kensington, CT
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Viper can be an 11 second car, there was a video of a new 03 going 11.8 bone stock. I think a Dodge truck with that motor could go for 12s! People have gone 13.3s with bone stock Lightnings and they only have 385 hp!
03-02-2003, 10:58 PM
#24
Supreme Member
stock newer f-body's take out lightly modified lightnings up at NED all the time.
03-02-2003, 11:37 PM
#26
Supreme Member
Originally posted by Benny
From what I hear the SRT will be $55-60K, havent heard of any 1/4 mile times yet.
From what I hear the SRT will be $55-60K, havent heard of any 1/4 mile times yet.
03-02-2003, 11:59 PM
#27
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Originally posted by 383backinblack
it had best be goddamn fast for that kind of money
it had best be goddamn fast for that kind of money
03-03-2003, 12:21 AM
#28
Supreme Member
Originally posted by 25THRSS
yeap, and when it comes down to it it's still just a truck
yeap, and when it comes down to it it's still just a truck
03-03-2003, 12:29 AM
#29
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
Originally posted by 383backinblack
true, but trucks are good. I plan on getting a silverado SS when they come out in the spring....but i dont plan on beating up on camaros and such with it lol. it will be fun to drive none the less though i think
true, but trucks are good. I plan on getting a silverado SS when they come out in the spring....but i dont plan on beating up on camaros and such with it lol. it will be fun to drive none the less though i think
03-03-2003, 01:13 AM
#30
Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 383backinblack
true, but trucks are good. I plan on getting a silverado SS when they come out in the spring....but i dont plan on beating up on camaros and such with it lol. it will be fun to drive none the less though i think
true, but trucks are good. I plan on getting a silverado SS when they come out in the spring....but i dont plan on beating up on camaros and such with it lol. it will be fun to drive none the less though i think
03-03-2003, 01:17 AM
#31
Supreme Member
Originally posted by Benny
If they built it like the pre-production numbers were, it would have a hard time beating up a Cavilier.
If they built it like the pre-production numbers were, it would have a hard time beating up a Cavilier.
that doesnt sound to bad to me
thats been the model the whole time too, the only different one, was the one with the ls6 top end at SEMA that had 396hp
03-03-2003, 01:24 AM
#32
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 2007 Saturn Sky Redline
Engine: 2.0 turbo
Transmission: m5
Axle/Gears: 3.91 LSD
Not fast enough to take on a Lightning and a bed too short to do any work with, certainly worth the $40k!
03-03-2003, 10:47 AM
#33
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Inwo
Not fast enough to take on a Lightning and a bed too short to do any work with, certainly worth the $40k!
Not fast enough to take on a Lightning and a bed too short to do any work with, certainly worth the $40k!
03-03-2003, 10:51 AM
#34
Supreme Member
Originally posted by B4C Hawaii
I would say certainly NOT worth thr 40K, espically when a lightning is 34K and a much faster truck that will still out handle it and tow 5,000lbs. AWD doesn't equal all wheel excitment in this case.
I would say certainly NOT worth thr 40K, espically when a lightning is 34K and a much faster truck that will still out handle it and tow 5,000lbs. AWD doesn't equal all wheel excitment in this case.
the lightning is not a truck i dont care what anyone says....its 2 wheel drive, its setup to handle like a car, and it looks like a hover craft.
its a sports car thats made to look like a truck. im not going to start this argument again, but the lightning has 380hp....which 40hp more than the SS and the SS is n/a. that should tell you something about quality right there. ATI makes a kit for that engine too. id like to see what that would do.
03-03-2003, 10:58 AM
#35
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 383backinblack
its not intended to compete with the lightning....everything is a pissing contest to some people.
the lightning is not a truck i dont care what anyone says....its 2 wheel drive, its setup to handle like a car, and it looks like a hover craft.
its a sports car thats made to look like a truck. im not going to start this argument again, but the lightning has 380hp....which 40hp more than the SS and the SS is n/a. that should tell you something about quality right there. ATI makes a kit for that engine too. id like to see what that would do.
its not intended to compete with the lightning....everything is a pissing contest to some people.
the lightning is not a truck i dont care what anyone says....its 2 wheel drive, its setup to handle like a car, and it looks like a hover craft.
its a sports car thats made to look like a truck. im not going to start this argument again, but the lightning has 380hp....which 40hp more than the SS and the SS is n/a. that should tell you something about quality right there. ATI makes a kit for that engine too. id like to see what that would do.
03-03-2003, 11:06 AM
#36
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 2007 Saturn Sky Redline
Engine: 2.0 turbo
Transmission: m5
Axle/Gears: 3.91 LSD
It also has about 200 less ft/lbs of torque... Its bed is too small to use as a "work truck" or even carrying a motorcycle, and it's too slow to be used as a "sport truck" like the lightning, and it has FOUR DOORS. WHO is the target audience for this truck? People with too much money and MUST have at least one of each of Chevy's "performance" cars and trucks? I am THOROUGHLY unimpressed. At least put the 8.1L big block in it, make it WORTHY of the SS moniker...
03-03-2003, 11:18 AM
#38
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 2007 Saturn Sky Redline
Engine: 2.0 turbo
Transmission: m5
Axle/Gears: 3.91 LSD
Hahaha 5.3L of POWA! The SSR will compete with the PT Cruiser in the performance category. It weighs about 4500lbs...and has I believe 275hp/310tq last article I saw. The performance specs keep dropping like a rock. Sad.
The SSR will compete with the PT Cruiser in the performance category. It weighs about 4500lbs...and has I believe 275hp/310tq last article I saw. The performance specs keep dropping like a rock. Sad.
03-03-2003, 12:51 PM
#39
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Inwo
Hahaha 5.3L of POWA! The SSR will compete with the PT Cruiser in the performance category. It weighs about 4500lbs...and has I believe 275hp/310tq last article I saw. The performance specs keep dropping like a rock. Sad.
Hahaha 5.3L of POWA!
The SSR will compete with the PT Cruiser in the performance category. It weighs about 4500lbs...and has I believe 275hp/310tq last article I saw. The performance specs keep dropping like a rock. Sad.
03-04-2003, 11:00 AM
#41
Supreme Member
Originally posted by B4C Hawaii
Sounds like your the one with the wet pants.
Sounds like your the one with the wet pants.
lightnings look gay, and 380hp from a supercharged v8 is pathetic....way to go ford.
the same amount of boost applied to one the 6.0l vortec engines nets about 475hp....nuff said.
i just dont care anymore, i used to actively hate the lightning, but its just another piece of sh*t from ford, so whatever it doesnt really bother me.
03-04-2003, 11:49 AM
#43
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: winthrop harbor, il & plymouth, il
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1986 camaro
Engine: 383 sbc
Transmission: th-400
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 10 bolt/Detroit TrueTrac 4.
Originally posted by 383backinblack
nope, i wouldnt drive a ford truck if it was the last moving vehicle on earth...id build my own from the ground up.
lightnings look gay, and 380hp from a supercharged v8 is pathetic....way to go ford.
the same amount of boost applied to one the 6.0l vortec engines nets about 475hp....nuff said.
i just dont care anymore, i used to actively hate the lightning, but its just another piece of sh*t from ford, so whatever it doesnt really bother me.
nope, i wouldnt drive a ford truck if it was the last moving vehicle on earth...id build my own from the ground up.
lightnings look gay, and 380hp from a supercharged v8 is pathetic....way to go ford.
the same amount of boost applied to one the 6.0l vortec engines nets about 475hp....nuff said.
i just dont care anymore, i used to actively hate the lightning, but its just another piece of sh*t from ford, so whatever it doesnt really bother me.
03-04-2003, 03:52 PM
#44
Supreme Member
Originally posted by spartyon
man u dont know what you are missing. my brother in law just bought a 2001 f-250 that had 8 miles on it from the dealer. that thing is a beast.
man u dont know what you are missing. my brother in law just bought a 2001 f-250 that had 8 miles on it from the dealer. that thing is a beast.
why is it that the v8 pulls harder than the v10? thats f*ckin stupid....
my 2002 gmc with the 6.0l vortec kills the fords around town. the GM trucks are waaaay faster than the ford trucks....with the only exception being the diesel (and its not that much faster, its like a 40 ft/lb difference)
fords gas truck engines suck hole.
03-04-2003, 04:08 PM
#45
Supreme Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: winthrop harbor, il & plymouth, il
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1986 camaro
Engine: 383 sbc
Transmission: th-400
Axle/Gears: 4th Gen 10 bolt/Detroit TrueTrac 4.
Originally posted by 383backinblack
ford is interesting...ive driven them, would never own one.....
why is it that the v8 pulls harder than the v10? thats f*ckin stupid....
my 2002 gmc with the 6.0l vortec kills the fords around town. the GM trucks are waaaay faster than the ford trucks....with the only exception being the diesel (and its not that much faster, its like a 40 ft/lb difference)
fords gas truck engines suck hole.
ford is interesting...ive driven them, would never own one.....
why is it that the v8 pulls harder than the v10? thats f*ckin stupid....
my 2002 gmc with the 6.0l vortec kills the fords around town. the GM trucks are waaaay faster than the ford trucks....with the only exception being the diesel (and its not that much faster, its like a 40 ft/lb difference)
fords gas truck engines suck hole.
03-04-2003, 04:39 PM
#46
Supreme Member
Originally posted by spartyon
actually their 8 cyl doesnt pull harder than their 10 he has tried with his neighbors. secondly, how come the old inline 300's they put in there f series were so good? i dont know but the 300's were beasts. i know i have one. they are pretty awesome pulling motors.
actually their 8 cyl doesnt pull harder than their 10 he has tried with his neighbors. secondly, how come the old inline 300's they put in there f series were so good? i dont know but the 300's were beasts. i know i have one. they are pretty awesome pulling motors.
heres the numbers....
ford trucks:
330ci 5.4L triton v8 - 260hp 350ft/lbs
415ci 6.8L triton v10 - 310hp 425ft/lbs
363ci powerstroke diesel 7.3l - 250hp 525ft/lbs
444ci powerstroke turbo diesel 6.0 325hp 560 ft/lbs
chevy trucks:
325ci 5.3L vortec v8 - 285hp (torque n/a)
362ci 6.0L vortec v8 - 300hp 380 ft/lbs
496ci 8.1L vortec v8 - 340hp 450 ft/lbs
6.6L duramax diesel - 300hp 520 ft/lbs
well i dont see where ford kills anything here. the have a 40ft/lb advantage on the diesel.....so that commercial on tv where the ford wins by about 50 ft is ridiculous.
the gas motors theres no competition, considering the vastly superior transmissions in the GM trucks.
therefore, the lightning doesnt even count cause its not built to be a truck its car that KIND OF looks like it might be a truck.
and the camaro STILL wins
Last edited by 383backinblack; 03-04-2003 at 04:42 PM.
03-04-2003, 06:21 PM
#47
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 383backinblack
ive driven both, and the v10 was a dog.
heres the numbers....
ford trucks:
330ci 5.4L triton v8 - 260hp 350ft/lbs
415ci 6.8L triton v10 - 310hp 425ft/lbs
363ci powerstroke diesel 7.3l - 250hp 525ft/lbs
444ci powerstroke turbo diesel 6.0 325hp 560 ft/lbs
chevy trucks:
325ci 5.3L vortec v8 - 285hp (torque n/a)
362ci 6.0L vortec v8 - 300hp 380 ft/lbs
496ci 8.1L vortec v8 - 340hp 450 ft/lbs
6.6L duramax diesel - 300hp 520 ft/lbs
well i dont see where ford kills anything here. the have a 40ft/lb advantage on the diesel.....so that commercial on tv where the ford wins by about 50 ft is ridiculous.
the gas motors theres no competition, considering the vastly superior transmissions in the GM trucks.
therefore, the lightning doesnt even count cause its not built to be a truck its car that KIND OF looks like it might be a truck.
and the camaro STILL wins
ive driven both, and the v10 was a dog.
heres the numbers....
ford trucks:
330ci 5.4L triton v8 - 260hp 350ft/lbs
415ci 6.8L triton v10 - 310hp 425ft/lbs
363ci powerstroke diesel 7.3l - 250hp 525ft/lbs
444ci powerstroke turbo diesel 6.0 325hp 560 ft/lbs
chevy trucks:
325ci 5.3L vortec v8 - 285hp (torque n/a)
362ci 6.0L vortec v8 - 300hp 380 ft/lbs
496ci 8.1L vortec v8 - 340hp 450 ft/lbs
6.6L duramax diesel - 300hp 520 ft/lbs
well i dont see where ford kills anything here. the have a 40ft/lb advantage on the diesel.....so that commercial on tv where the ford wins by about 50 ft is ridiculous.
the gas motors theres no competition, considering the vastly superior transmissions in the GM trucks.
therefore, the lightning doesnt even count cause its not built to be a truck its car that KIND OF looks like it might be a truck.
and the camaro STILL wins
03-04-2003, 07:31 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Stevens Point Wisconsin
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1991 Formula
Engine: 350 firebreathing inches of Small Block Chevrolet
Transmission: A 700R4 that has trouble handling the formentioned 350.
Originally posted by spartyon
actually their 8 cyl doesnt pull harder than their 10 he has tried with his neighbors. secondly, how come the old inline 300's they put in there f series were so good? i dont know but the 300's were beasts. i know i have one. they are pretty awesome pulling motors.
actually their 8 cyl doesnt pull harder than their 10 he has tried with his neighbors. secondly, how come the old inline 300's they put in there f series were so good? i dont know but the 300's were beasts. i know i have one. they are pretty awesome pulling motors.
But the comments about the Chevrolet engine and tranny's being better and faster than their Ford counterparts is true. The Ford's are dogs compared to the Chev's and anyone how does agree obviously has never driven both. All the SS Silverado needs to compete with the Lighting (Screw compete, all they need to humiliate the Lighting) is just a little boost
.YES the inline 300's where beast's but for duarbility not performance, the 302 Ford truck would kill the 300, but the 350 Chev's where spanking them both.
Later, Garrett
03-04-2003, 07:31 PM
#49
Supreme Member
Originally posted by B4C Hawaii
Last I heard the Lightning was a F-150 that tows 5,000lbs and looks nothing like a car. I don't like the Ford stuff any more than any other F-body owner but the Lightning is a pretty awesome TRUCK that whips any truck Chevy has now. Now if Chevy would built a "real SS" like a ZO6 Shortbox standard cab Silverado that would be real nice.
Last I heard the Lightning was a F-150 that tows 5,000lbs and looks nothing like a car. I don't like the Ford stuff any more than any other F-body owner but the Lightning is a pretty awesome TRUCK that whips any truck Chevy has now. Now if Chevy would built a "real SS" like a ZO6 Shortbox standard cab Silverado that would be real nice.
ya an ls6 powered truck would be great, but that would cost like 50K.
the lightning is not a truck. it was never meant to be a truck, it wasnt meant to tow things with, it wasnt meant to haul things with, it wasnt meant to be driven in the rain or snow. it was built to be a fast car that looks like a truck, and thus appeals to a differentiated sector of the performance enthusiast market.
it also has a performance oriented front suspension thats why it corners so much better than a regular truck.....looks an awful lot like a sports car. ****-mobiles LOOK like lemans cars, but they arent are they?
a half ton GMC pickup (2003) with the crap box 4.8L v8 has a trailering capacity of 6900lbs. bump it up to the 5.3L with the same axle ratio as the lightning (3.73) and it maxes out at 8100lbs....these are bottom of the barrel no frills trucks as well.
f150(half ton) lightning, 3.73's...5000lbs
which proves my point, the lightning is not a truck, not was it intended to be one.
03-04-2003, 07:34 PM
#50
Supreme Member
Originally posted by CamaroFreak406
Yes the V-8's do pull better than the V-10's. And the Ford's new 6.0 Diesel should be freakin' crazy from what I've read (Chevrolet Duramax is a JOKE JOKE JOKE, they can't even come close to the Power Stroke's and Cummin's Powerplants)
But the comments about the Chevrolet engine and tranny's being better and faster than their Ford counterparts is true. The Ford's are dogs compared to the Chev's and anyone how does agree obviously has never driven both. All the SS Silverado needs to compete with the Lighting (Screw compete, all they need to humiliate the Lighting) is just a little boost .
YES the inline 300's where beast's but for duarbility not performance, the 302 Ford truck would kill the 300, but the 350 Chev's where spanking them both.
Later, Garrett
Yes the V-8's do pull better than the V-10's. And the Ford's new 6.0 Diesel should be freakin' crazy from what I've read (Chevrolet Duramax is a JOKE JOKE JOKE, they can't even come close to the Power Stroke's and Cummin's Powerplants)
But the comments about the Chevrolet engine and tranny's being better and faster than their Ford counterparts is true. The Ford's are dogs compared to the Chev's and anyone how does agree obviously has never driven both. All the SS Silverado needs to compete with the Lighting (Screw compete, all they need to humiliate the Lighting) is just a little boost
.YES the inline 300's where beast's but for duarbility not performance, the 302 Ford truck would kill the 300, but the 350 Chev's where spanking them both.
Later, Garrett